ESCP Europe London 2010

Dr Gordon Wright

Management Report
London Electricity
Service Centre

Blaisiane Blanchard
Giulia Fanti
Thomas Glita
Luca Musso
1

Table of contents.

I. Summary..........................................................................................................................................3
A. Context.......................................................................................................................................3
B. Problematic.................................................................................................................................3
C. Analysis......................................................................................................................................3
D. Results and recommendations....................................................................................................3
II. Introduction....................................................................................................................................4
III. Analysis and Discussion................................................................................................................5
A. From a queue analysis point of view..........................................................................................6
1. Which system would give the best level of service?...............................................................6
2. The four minutes wait time target...........................................................................................8
B. Layout and process analysis.......................................................................................................8
1. Analysis of the present layout:................................................................................................8
2. Proposals for layout improvement..........................................................................................8
3. Process analysis.....................................................................................................................10
C. Cashier scheduling....................................................................................................................10
1. The present schedule.............................................................................................................10
2. Proposal for a new schedule..................................................................................................13
3. Getting closer to an optimum................................................................................................15
D. Observations and recommendations.........................................................................................18
IV. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................19
A. Queuing analysis......................................................................................................................19
B. Layout.......................................................................................................................................19
V. Recommendations........................................................................................................................19
A. Queuing structure.....................................................................................................................19
B. Recommended layout...............................................................................................................19
C. Recommended cashier schedules.............................................................................................20
VI. Appendices..................................................................................................................................21
A. Modelling.................................................................................................................................21
1. Adjustments to the model......................................................................................................21
2. Plotting waiting times............................................................................................................21
B. Scheduling................................................................................................................................23
1. Arrivals mapping..................................................................................................................23
2. Cashiers schedules.................................................................................................................24
3. Schedule testing ....................................................................................................................26

I. Summary.
A. Context
London Electricity wants to improve its customer service levels.
The company wants to use its assets and resources productively.

B. Problematic
How can London Electricity ensure a waiting time target of no more than a 4 minute
customer wait?
How can the company optimize its cashiers work?

C. Analysis
Which queuing structure has to be adopted? A system of parallel single channel queues to
single servers or a one-line model?
How can London Electricity improve its business performance by redesigning its Service
Centres layout?
How could the company optimize its cashiers schedules to ensure the customers 4-minute
wait time target?

D. Results and recommendations

London Electricity should adopt a one-line queue model.
The layout of the Service Centres has to be changed in order to improve the service
efficiency. Several Consumer Paths which will cross as little as possible and a proper
queuing area should be defined.
Available staff should fit customers needs. That is why there should always be the minimal
level of staff necessary to prevent average queue from going over 3.7 minute. Besides,
since the midday hours are actually the bottleneck of the process, London Electricity needs
to have sufficient staff during these periods. Then, we recommend multitasking, i.e. using
people from the Enquiry Desks to take turns operating the cash desks while cashiers have
their lunch break.

II. Introduction.
In the 1990s, London Electricity was a monopolistic electricity provider for London. The
company was awarded the Charter Mark standard for Service Excellence by the UK government. It
is a highly prestigious Service and Quality award to successful organisations who can then
display the Charter Mark logo in all their publicity.
Around 2004, the UK energy market is now deregulated and a considerable strategic
repositioning of many UK energy companies takes place. At this time, London Electricity has 36
retail service centres located around London. The company aims to keep a high-quality level in its
customer services and to optimize the business performance of each centre. London Electricity
targets to ensure a waiting time no more than a 4 minute customer wait.
First, some initial evaluations can be formulated. The Four Vs can be used to point out the
particularities of this business. London Electricitys profile of operations is as follows:
The volume of offered services is high. Around 350 customers can arrived at a Service
Centre during a day, what is equivalent to 350 provided services a day.
The range offered of different services is low.
The sales market variation is middle, because even if during the day customers arrival rate
varies, this variation is foreseeable.
The degree of visibility which customers have of the operation and its processes is very
high.
Then, London Electricity Service centres business project can be described as follows.
Its process map is:
Arrive

Queue

Operation

Leave

This process has to face some operational management issues both customer related and
resource related.
First, London Electricity aims to match capacity with demand which is often volatile, to
minimise customer wait time, to maximise service quality to the customer and to minimise
customer throughput time.
Then, to optimise the business performance, London Electricity has to establish an efficient
work flow schedule, to minimise the work in progress (WIP), to operate an efficient appointment
system, to maximise the use of expensive resources (human resources particularly) and to establish
effective performance measures.
The evaluation of London Electricitys processes, structure and activities and our changes
recommendations will be led more precisely further in the report.

III.Analysis and Discussion

The issue we need to solve is that of cashier scheduling, in order to achieve our target of a four
minutes waiting time for 95% of the customers.
On the following graph we plotted the arrival rate for each day of the last three months as a
function of the weeks number and the day of the week.

There is a weekly pattern, which we can show by plotting the average rate of arrival over the three
months against the days of the week. This enables us to isolate the variances in arrival rates which
do not result of this weekly pattern

As it shows, most variances occur during the third month of the trimester, du to the rush of people
seeking to meet deadlines.

A. From a queue analysis point of view

1. Which system would give the best level of service?
In this part we will be focusing on the theoretical issue of knowing whether the new queuing
system is more efficient than the old one.
On the next page, we have plotted the average queuing time given by either of the models.
We assumed that a single queue, two cashiers system is to be compared with a one queue, one
cashier system with half the formers arrival rate. It amounts to say that people always go where
there is less queue, which might be close to reality as in fact, people do not choose at random and
afterwards stay in their queue, which would be the assumptions of an equally probable model.
The table of value being too imprecise, we plugged directly the formula of the law of probability
into the model. Our charts are based on values table created using a macro. They display the
evolution of the queuing time for two cashiers in both the single and multiple queue models.
The range we chose goes from 24 to 90 clients per minute which is the actual spread observed on
historical data, and from 55 to 85 seconds service time, in order to show at least what happens
within three sigmas of the normal time of 55 seconds.
As we can see, the one-line model is constantly more efficient than the multiple-queue model.
In the following graph we plotted the difference in average queuing time between parallel queues
and single queue with one cashier as a function of both arrival rate and average service time in
seconds.
The difference is significant in overall performance as well as peak performance: the single queue
waiting time becomes more than 4 minutes only when arrival rate is more than 90 and service time
6

is more than 72 seconds, whereas the separate queues can barely cope with 85 clients served in a
average in 69 seconds if they are to achieve the 4 minutes target.

As we can see, the single queue model is always better than the multiple queues. The same result
can be shown for greater numbers of cash desks.

2. The four minutes wait time target.

Both queuing systems can achieve the 4 minutes target. Yet the single queue model can do it with
fewer resources as it creates shorter waiting times. Moreover, this single queue system is less likely
to collapse under too high arrival rates. As it shows on the graphs, waiting time diverges sooner
with the multiple queue model.
The single queue model is therefore more efficient and safer.

B. Layout and process analysis.

1. Analysis of the present layout:
The layout of the service centre is a traditional, functional one. It enables one customer to carry out
different tasks in the centre. Yet this does not seem optimal as:

Customer paths are not streamlined; they bump into each other which might disrupt the
whole centre when 60 customers per hour come for their bill payments.

There is no dedicated queuing area; people might be tempted to skip the queue.

The Powerkey charging machines are too isolated and far from staff, they are in the
coldest zone of the service centre as it is uneasy.

Staff members cannot easily access every service point.

2. Proposals for layout improvement

The proposal is summarized on the draft on the following page. It is based on the assumption that
people know what they want to do in the center, therefore paths can be differentiated earlier, so
that they do not intersect. Key points are:

Defining several Consumer Paths (green and red arrows) which cross as little as
possible, so that the room may be full of people with minimal discomfort and service
disruption.

A proper queuing area, suited to queues up to 12 people which might occur if there is a
peak in arrivals, for example a hundred customers arriving in one hour with normal 67
seconds service time.

A change-giving machine should be integrated in the layout so that people never need
to go to the cash desks in order get change to use the Powerkey machines. A good
layout might be to dedicate the change distributor to one Powerkey machine, so people
will neither queue twice, nor wait behind someone who does not have the right change
when they do.
8

The powerkey machines being unpopular, putting them next to the window might make
people like them more.

A mobile separation could be used to delimit a staff-only zone, enabling staff to move
swiftly to any service provision point where a client might need help with machines, or
to move from enquiry desks to cash desks when needed.

3. Process analysis
Looking at the process currently used, several fail points arise.
First, a proper forecasting of customer demand has to be established. Indeed some inaccuracies can
be noticed in the staff resources allocation. Customers may for instance find a cash desk closed at
times of peak demand. Therefore cahier scheduling has to be reviewed.
Then we have to forecast the need in staff because an insufficiency of staff results in queues. Even
if staffs are a very expensive expenditure, a lack of staff leads to probably higher costs. Customers
may become tired of waiting. They will leave without completing their transaction. And London
Electricity will loose the benefit of the revenue and will certainly incur the expense of extra
payment reminder letters. This statement still leads us towards optimized cashier schedules.
Then, in terms of people, training is required to make the cashiers more efficient. Transaction time
and waiting time will indeed suffer from cashiers lack of performance.
Besides, London Electricity Services Centre does not pay really attention to the unexpected event
which could occur. A computer failure could for instance have large negative consequences.
Additional labour has to be recruited for such an eventuality.
Moreover, the potential mistakes made in the counting out of change and the close controls operate
on the transfer of funds have to be analysed. Indeed, both issues contribute to an inordinate amount
of wasted time, which impacts the global performance. Besides, mistakes have also a direct
negative impact on customer satisfaction.
Yet defining a new plant layout is not the only way to improve performance, we also need to have
a close look on scheduling and see whether it can be devised more efficiently.

C. Cashier scheduling
1. The present schedule.
On the following chart we can see that on the first Monday of May, average arrival rate is
usually lower than 80. As we can expect a 1.5 sigma deviation on our average service time of 55s, it
may go up to 55+1.5 (8)= 67s. Therefore assuming that we can maintain two server points up and
running all day long at 100% efficiency, we would be on the safe side by simply having a single
queue system.

10

Average/day
12
58.125
57.01 50.72
67.5 55.375
43.28 59.375
49.04
ofFrequencies
the week
in clients per hours

74.75
53.67

44.04
52

Week\Day

mon

tue

wed

thu

fri

sat

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

61.875
58.125
56
57.25
43
42
27.75
48.625
71.375
68.5
91.5

41
42.125
42
43.5
34.125
37
42.125
43.875
64.875
75.625
75

40.75
38.875
24.5
28.375
28.75
32.75
44.75
41.125
52.125
60.75
71.25

49.5
38.75
41.875
46.5
33
46.625
48.625
47.75
45.875
64.5
66.125

47.375
46.625
49.5
45
32.75
37.375
37.5
53.125
69.625
72.75
77.75

49
42
37.125
35.625
34.625
34.125
36.625
47.25
49.875
54.875
55.375

61.1875
49.63

wk
month
average
average
48.25
march
44.41667 44.30208333
41.83333
42.70833
34.375
april
38.3125 39.80208333
39.5625
46.95833
58.95833
may
66.16667 64.78645833
72.83333

Yet these are big, dangerous assumptions. Actual efficiency is closer to 80% and hard to
improve. Moreover, staff take a one-hour lunch break. To adapt the model to this information we
can do two things :

Consider service time is 55s = 67s and may go up to (1/0.8)* 67= 83.75s

Devise a schedule of cashier presence :

Time
Staff 1
Staff 2

8 to 9
1
1

9 to
10
1
1

10 to
11
1
1

11 to
12

12 to 13
1
1

13 to
14
1

14 to 15
1
1

15 to
16
1
1

16 to
17
1
1

This schedule has two advantages: it enables us to take into account the fact that customers arriving
at 11:30 will actually be served by a single cashier. Therefore they might very well be part of the
5% angry customer margin we can afford. By having the two lunch breaks occur on both sides of a
full-staff hour we can reasonably assume that we minimize the stock of queuing customers, i.e that
these lunch breaks will not lead to an accumulation of waiting customers that would cause a
collapse of the whole system after the lunch break is over.
Under these assumptions we can try to devise a cashier presence scheme, and check how
many customers would have waited more than 4 minutes every day.
In that order we will assume that service time is 67 seconds, including the 80% efficiency
malus.Then, for each day we can calculate a lunchtime queue length and a normal time one. If the
waiting in the lunchtime period is always more than 4 minutes, 25% of the days frequentation will
go increase the number of unsatisfied clients.
The following charts display waiting time both in normal and lunch periods. The second
chart displays in red the days when midday queues are above 4 minutes.

11

Normal waiting time with two cashiers

Wee
mon
tue
wed
k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Wee
k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

thu

fri

0.827242 0.368595 0.364916 0.513503 0.473249

0.714574 0.385515 0.338214 0.336487 0.459745
0.658427 0.383605 0.174959 0.381703 0.513503
0.690846 0.407039 0.212915 0.457528
0.399101 0.276914 0.216793 0.263585

0.43165
0.26068

0.383605 0.312989 0.26068 0.459745 0.317922

0.206534 0.385515 0.427462 0.496559 0.319578
0.496559 0.413078 0.370446 0.480135 0.589823
1.226061 0.932644 0.567718 0.446585 1.136374
1.083294 1.488778 0.791424 0.918609 1.303416
3.963166 1.445432 1.219344 0.981396 1.651178
0.714574 1.038805 0.642833

0.75006

1.4286

sat
0.5037554
4
0.3836050
7
0.3146274
6
0.2953615
8
0.2829757
0.2769143
3
0.3081112
0.4709742
0.5209304
4
0.6306392
9
0.6428328
2
0.5650143
7

wk
average

month
average
march

0.454963
0.393352

44.30208333
0

0.355892

0.368245
0.262598
0.309343
0.325317
0.433331

april
39.80208333
0
0
may

0.678669
0.894591

64.78645833
0

1.174301
0.738258

Lunchtime waiting time, 1 cashier, 0 means the value is too high for the model
wk
month
mon
tue
wed
thu
fri
sat
average
average
16.692004
march
0 4.134167 4.020507 19.80655 10.8815
5 9.829555
4.6436403
44.30208333
0 4.714322 3.302355 3.261512 9.309612
5 5.324781
2.7915268
0
0 4.64364 1.007511 4.574643 19.80655
5 3.926193
2.4386880
0
0 5.623397 1.355351 9.086725 7.002315
5 4.326493
2.2366138
april
5.261934 2.143886 1.395071 1.952758 1.913263
2 1.983092
2.1438862
39.80208333
4.64364 2.759492 1.913263 9.309612 2.857199
9 2.774676
2.6664410
0
1.29184 4.714322 6.734764 14.9028 2.890864
3 3.117977
14.9028 5.92244 4.192893 11.85909
0
10.5875 7.742024
0
0
0 250.2827 8.101102
0 22.963755
0
may
12

10
11
12

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

7
0
0
163.85416
7

0 64.78645833
0
0
0

As it shows, the lunchtime periods are going to be very busy. Actually with two cashiers, 5 927
clients would have waited more than 4 minutes each, or not at all. This amounts to 21% of the
total amount, well above the 5% limit.

2. Proposal for a new schedule.

If we raise the number of cashiers to three and make sure that there are always two cashiers
in activity during the lunch period, the number of unsatisfied customers drops to 856 and the
proportion to 3%. Only on the last week of the three month period will lunchtimes be rush hours.
Yet this costs a lot of money and such capacity is not really needed.
Lunchtime waiting time with two
cashiers during lunch
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

monday

tuesday

Wed.

Thur.

friday

0.827242 0.368595 0.364916 0.513503 0.473249

0.714574 0.385515 0.338214 0.336487 0.459745
0.658427 0.383605 0.174959 0.381703 0.513503
0.690846 0.407039 0.212915 0.457528
0.399101 0.276914 0.216793 0.263585

0.43165
0.26068

0.383605 0.312989 0.26068 0.459745 0.317922

0.206534 0.385515 0.427462 0.496559 0.319578
0.496559 0.413078 0.370446 0.480135 0.589823
1.226061 0.932644 0.567718 0.446585 1.136374
1.083294 1.488778 0.791424 0.918609 1.303416
3.963166 1.445432 1.219344 0.981396 1.651178
0.714574 1.038805 0.642833

0.75006

1.4286

13

saturday
0.5037554
4
0.3836050
7
0.3146274
6
0.2953615
8
0.2829757
0.2769143
3
0.3081112
0.4709742
0.5209304
4
0.6306392
9
0.6428328
2
0.5650143
7

wk
average
0.454963
0.393352
0.355892
0.368245
0.262598
0.309343
0.325317
0.433331
0.678669
0.894591
1.174301
0.738258

month average
march
44.30208333
0
0
april
39.80208333
0
0
may
64.78645833
0
0

Therefore we may want to manage in a more efficient way, ensuring that no service breakdowns
occur, yet minimizing staff hours.
In that order we can put one cashier only on really calm days, and up to three on the busiest ones.
Even though herds of clients coming on the last day of the trimester deserve to suffer long waits for
their behaving like sheep, our interest is to avoid breakdowns occurring on these days as too many
people would suffer from them and therefore it would have dramatic impact on our 5% under 4
minutes criterion.
Based on the diverse tables we proposed in studying client behaviour, we can propose the
following table. It is built on simple criteria: there should always be the minimal level of staff
necessary to prevent average queue from going over 3.7 minutes (by keeping a safety margin we
take into account possible variations between trimesters). The midday hours are actually the
bottleneck of our process. Therefore we only need to have sufficient staff during these periods, and
there is no real need of having three persons serving at 4 pm, apart from the fact that they can take
turns to eat at midday.

Schedule : Number of cashiers

per day
Week\Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

mon
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3

tue

wed
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3

thu

fri
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

sat
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3

3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3

If we apply the model to this layout we can see that on daily average (0.25 x midday wait + 0.75*
normal wait if 2 cashiers, 66.6% / 33.3% if three), the waiting time is really low. It is quite evenly
distributed, yet more concentrated towards the beginning of the month, as staff is less abundant.

Daily average waiting time

14

mon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2

tue

wed

thu

fri

0.357424 0.154007 0.152358 0.219002

0.20097

0.308235 0.161597 1.079249 1.067744 0.194913

0.28349 0.16074 0.383097 0.159886 0.219002
0.297796 0.171257 0.498524 0.193918 0.182304
0.167694 0.743657 0.511363 0.685878 0.673826
0.16074 0.924615 0.673826 0.194913 0.952741
0.477861 0.161597 0.180425 0.211416

0.9624

0.211416 0.173967 0.154837 0.204057 0.253063

0.52644 0.402857 0.243219 0.189008
0.466825 0.633833 0.341856

0.4891

0.39684 0.558358

1.561405 0.616305 0.523656 0.423681 0.698891

0.308235 0.448051 0.276592 0.323796 0.609479

sat
0.2146391
5
0.1607395
9
0.9338523
1
0.8311932
0.7713852
3
0.7436573
2
0.8976936
6
0.1999493
3
0.2223253
9
0.2711903
1
0.2765918
8
0.2420134
8

wk
average

month
average

0.2164

march

0.495413

0.357747346

0.356678
0.362499
0.5923

april

0.608415

0.470540649

0.481899
0.199548
0.345492

may

0.444817

0.460439571

0.683422
0.368028

The only problem here is that we are still quite far from an optimum. The bottleneck nature of
lunch times means that if we tailor our whole system to them, we will be heavily overstaffed.
Therefore we need to have a variable number of cashiers.

3. Getting closer to an optimum.

If we can have three cashiers during lunchtime and two for the rest of the day, or two and one, we
will come much closer to an optimum.
This is possible by multitasking, i.e. using people from the Enquiry Desks to take turns operating
the cash desks while cashiers have their lunch break.
Our table of personnel needs therefore becomes:

15

Schedule : Number of cashiers

per day
Week\Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

mon

tue

2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
1/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1

wed

2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
1/1
1/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1

2/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1

fri

2/1
1/1
2/1
2/1
1/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1

sat

2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1

2/1
2/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1
2/1

2/1 means that we need two staff members during the day and one more during three
hours including his/her own lunch break at midday.

Time

8 to 9

Staff 1
Staff 2
Multitaskin
g staff

1
1

9 to
10
1
1

10 to
11
1
1

11 to
12
lunch
1

1
1

13 to
14
1
lunch

lunch

12 to 13

thu

14 to 15
1
1

15 to
16
1
1

16 to
17
1
1

1/1 means that we need one permanent cashier and one more for two hours at lunchtime

Time

8 to 9

Staff 1
Multitaskin
g staff

9 to
10
1

10 to
11
1

11 to
12
lunch

12 to 13
1

13 to
14
1

14 to 15
1

15 to
16
1

16 to
17
1

lunch

This scheme is far more efficient as we use the whole range of our 0-4 minute tolerance, while still
keeping the 5% unsatisfied clients margin as a security buffer. The effect on waiting time is
displayed in the following table and graph :
Daily average waiting time with multitasking
mon
1
2

tue

wed

thu

fri

0.827242 0.368595 0.364916 0.513503 0.473249

0.714574 0.385515 3.302355 3.261512 0.459745
16

sat
0.5037554
4
0.3836050
7

wk
average
0.5085436
9
1.4178845
1

month
average
march
0.961497749

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2

0.658427 0.383605 1.007511 0.381703 0.513503

0.690846 0.407039 1.355351 0.457528

0.43165

0.399101 2.143886 1.395071 1.952758 1.913263

0.383605 2.759492 1.913263 0.459745 2.857199
1.29184 0.385515 0.427462 0.496559 2.890864
0.496559 0.413078 0.370446 0.480135 0.589823
1.226061 0.932644 0.567718 0.446585 1.136374
1.083294 1.488778 0.791424 0.918609 1.303416
3.963166 1.445432 1.219344 0.981396 1.651178
0.714574 1.038805 0.642833

0.75006

1.4286

2.7915268
5
2.4386880
5
2.2366138
2
2.1438862
9
2.6664410
3
0.4709742
0.5209304
4
0.6306392
9
0.6428328
2
0.5650143
7

0.9560458
7
0.9635169
2
1.6734489
3
1.7528651
3
1.3597801
2
0.4701690
2
0.8050522
1
1.0360267
6
1.6505580
4
0.8566476
6

april
1.314065798

may
0.871454729

Obviously this way of managing staff is riskier than the current one. Yet our risk zones are nonstrategic ones, as average waiting time is close to 4 minutes only in the beginning of the trimester
when affluence is low. Affluence on days when average waiting time would have been more than
three minutes with this model adds up to 1353 clients, i.e. 4.7% of the total. Therefore we keep a
reasonable error margin, which is a good thing as we work on historical data even though looking
at the overall figures for the two previous trimesters, affluence seems to be quite stable.
In a cost-control perspective this way of scheduling cashiers is much better than adding one
permanent cash desk. As regards staff we do not need to recruit extra, but only to train enquiry
17

desk so that they may be able to carry out cashier tasks. As regards plant and equipment we do not
need any extra cash desks, as we will be using the existing ones at 80% capacity instead of 7/8 *
80% = 70% simply by filling the lunchtime gaps.

D. Observations and recommendations.

The first field for improvement is visibility. Scheduling could be even more precise by working on
historical data collected over long periods on an hour-by-hour basis.
Put chronometers on cash desks so that service time is really checked. Record type of
service provided as well, and record powerkey machines use as well.
Gather historical data on frequentation on an hour-by-hour basis through these cash desks
an the entry door, feed a database with it. Store data over the whole year as seasonality is a
key feature of energy consumption, and therefore of bill importance. During the winter,
people will tend to have bigger energy concerns than in the summer, hence they will come
to the shops more frequently.

18

IV.

Conclusions
A. Queuing analysis.

The one-line model is constantly more efficient than the multiple-queue model. Even if a system of
parallel single channel queues to single servers could work, this second solution would be less
efficient and would collapse faster than a one-line model under a too high arrival rate.
The four minutes target can be reached with both queuing structures. Nevertheless, the one-line
model insures this wait time target for an higher number of customers.

B. Layout.
The layout of the service centre is a traditional, functional one. It faces up several bottlenecks.
Customer paths are not streamlined. And there is no dedicated queuing area what makes customers
circulation even more difficult. Moreover, staff members cannot easily access every service point.
The Powerkey charging machines area is for instance much insulated.
Therefore, a new layout has to be formulated, based on the assumption that people know what they
want to do in the center, in order to differentiate customers paths as soon as possible.

V. Recommendations
A. Queuing structure
In order to achieve its waiting time target of no more than a 4 minute customer wait we
recommend to London Electricity to adopt a one-line queuing system.

B. Recommended layout
In addition to this wait time target, London Electricity also wants to improve its general service
level and use its assets and resources productively. In order to enhance London Electricitys
business performance, we pointed out several fail points about the layout of the Services Centres.
Our analysis led us to the formulation of 5 key points to implement:

Defining several Consumer Paths which cross as little as possible.

Designing a proper queuing area.

19

Developing the Powerkey Machines in order that people never need to go to the cash
desks to have change before using them.

Put the powerkey machines next to the window to make them more popular for the
customers.

Limiting a staff-only zone to enable them to move swiftly to any service provision
point.

C. Recommended cashier schedules

London Electricity wants to use its assets and resources productively. In that order a proper
forecasting of customer demand has to be established. To optimize its business performance,
London Electricity should be able to predict the staff resources required. That is what we did in this
report. That is why some recommendations can now be formulated about the cashier schedules.
First there should always be the minimal level of staff necessary to prevent average queue
from going over 3.7 minutes. The midday hours are actually the bottleneck of our process.
Therefore we only need to have sufficient staff during these periods, and there is no real need of
having three persons serving at 4 pm, apart from the fact that they can take turns to eat at midday.
Then, we recommend multitasking, i.e. using people from the Enquiry Desks to take turns
operating the cash desks while cashiers have their lunch break. So, we can have three cashiers
during lunchtime and two for the rest of the day, or two and one, we will come much closer to an
optimum.

20

VI. Appendices
A. Modelling
1. Adjustments to the model
As the linear interpolation of Po values using the initial model gave too imprecise results when the
system was pushed to its limits, we directly used the formula given in the technical note on
queuing theory.
In excel we used the following formula:
=1/(IF(D10>1,(D7/D8)^1,0)
+IF(D10>2,(D7/D8)^2/FACT(2),0)
+IF(D10>3,(D7/D8)^3/FACT(3),0)
+IF(D10>4,(D7/D8)^4/FACT(4),0)
+(D7/D8)^D10/FACT(D10)*(D10*D8/(D10*D8-D7)))

2. Plotting waiting times

In order to plot average client waiting time according to service time and client arrival rate we
needed to generate large tables of values.
We did it with excel using the following Macro code:
Sub D()
For k = 2 To 2
Worksheets("Po values ").Cells(10, 4) = k
Application.Calculate
minn = 24
minm = 55
For n = minn To 92
Worksheets(3 * k).Cells(1, 1) = k
Worksheets(3 * k - 1).Cells(n + 1 - minn + 1, 1) = n
Worksheets(3 * k).Cells(n + 1 - minn + 1, 1) = n
Worksheets(3 * k + 1).Cells(n + 1 - minn + 1, 1) = n
For m = minm To 84
Worksheets(3 * k - 1).Cells(1, m - minm + 1 + 1) = m
Worksheets(3 * k).Cells(1, m - minm + 1 + 1) = m
Worksheets(3 * k + 1).Cells(1, m - minm + 1 + 1) = m
Worksheets("Po values ").Cells(7, 4) = n
Worksheets("Po values ").Cells(9, 4) = m / 60
21

Sheets("Po values ").Calculate

Sheets("single model").Calculate
If Worksheets("Po values ").Cells(22, 4) < 6 Then
Worksheets(3 * k).Cells(n + 2 - minn, m + 2 - minm) = Worksheets("Po values ").Cells(22, 4)
Else
Worksheets(3 * k).Cells(n + 2 - minn, m + 2 - minm) = 6
End If
If Worksheets("single model").Cells(14, 6) < 6 Then
Worksheets(3 * k + 1).Cells(n + 2 - minn, m + 2 - minm) = Worksheets("single
model").Cells(14, 6)
Else
Worksheets(3 * k + 1).Cells(n + 2 - minn, m + 2 - minm) = 6
End If
Worksheets(3 * k - 1).Cells(n + 2 - minn, m + 2 - minm) = Worksheets("single
model").Cells(14, 6) - Worksheets("Po values ").Cells(22, 4)
If Worksheets("single model").Cells(14, 6) > 6 And Worksheets("Po values ").Cells(22, 4)
> 6 Then
Worksheets(3 * k).Cells(n + 2 - minn, m + 2 - minm) = 6
Worksheets(3 * k + 1).Cells(n + 2 - minn, m + 2 - minm) = 6
End If
If Worksheets("single model").Cells(14, 6) - Worksheets("Po values ").Cells(22, 4) > 6 Then
Worksheets(3 * k - 1).Cells(n + 2 - minn, m + 2 - minm) = 6
End If
If Worksheets("single model").Cells(14, 6) - Worksheets("Po values ").Cells(22, 4) < -6 Then
Worksheets(3 * k - 1).Cells(n + 2 - minn, m + 2 - minm) = -6

End If
Next
Next
Next
End Sub
22

B. Scheduling
1. Arrivals mapping
march
1
2
3
4
april
5
6
7
8
may
9
10
11
12

mon
495
465
448
458

tue
328
337
336
348

wed
326
311
196
227

thu
396
310
335
372

fri
379
373
396
360

sat
392
336
297
285

wk total
2316
2132
2008
2050

month total
8506

344
336
222
389

273
296
337
351

230
262
358
329

264
373
389
382

262
299
300
425

277
273
293
378

1650
1839
1899
2254

7642

571
548
732
465

519
605
600
540

417
486
570
443

367
516
529
475

557
582
622
598
Total

399
439
443
416
28587

2830
3176
3496
2937

12439

Frequencies in clients per hours

Week\Day

mon

tue

wed

thu

fri

sat

wk average

61.875

41

40.75

49.5

47.375

49

58.125

42.125

38.875

38.75

46.625

42

56

42

24.5

41.875

49.5

37.125

57.25

43.5

28.375

46.5

45

35.625

5
6
7

43
42
27.75

34.125
37
42.125

28.75
32.75
44.75

33
46.625
48.625

32.75
37.375
37.5

34.625
34.125
36.625

48.625

43.875

41.125

47.75

53.125

47.25

71.375

64.875

52.125

45.875

69.625

49.875

10

68.5

75.625

60.75

64.5

72.75

54.875

11

91.5

75

71.25

66.125

77.75

55.375

48.25
44.416666
7
41.833333
3
42.708333
3
34.375
38.3125
39.5625
46.958333
3
58.958333
3
66.166666
7
72.833333
3

23

month
average
march
44.30208333

april
39.80208333

may
64.78645833

12
Average/da
y of the
week

58.125

67.5

55.375

59.375

74.75

52

61.1875

57.0104
2

50.7291
7

43.2812
5

49.0416
7

53.6770
8

44.041666
7

49.630208
3

tue

wed

thu

-2.53125

0.458333
10.29167
7.166667
2.541667
16.04167
2.416667
0.416667
1.291667
3.166667
15.45833
17.08333
10.33333

Frequency
variations
mon
1

-8.38541667

9.729167
8.604167
8.729167
7.229167
16.60417
13.72917
8.604167
6.854167

14.36458333
11.48958333
34.48958333
1.114583333

14.14583
24.89583
24.27083
16.77083

4.864583333

1.114583333

-1.01041667

0.239583333

-14.0104167

-15.0104167

-29.2604167

8
9
10
11
12

-4.40625
18.78125
14.90625
14.53125
10.53125
1.46875
-2.15625
8.84375
17.46875
27.96875
12.09375

fri

wk
average

sat

6.302083
7.052083
4.177083
8.677083
20.92708
16.30208
16.17708
0.552083
15.94792
19.07292
24.07292
21.07292

4.95833333
2.04166667
6.91666667
8.41666667
9.41666667
9.91666667
7.41666667

1.38020833
5.21354167
-7.796875
-6.921875
15.2552083
11.3177083
10.0677083

3.20833333

-2.671875

5.83333333
10.8333333
11.3333333
7.95833333

9.328125
16.5364583
23.203125
11.5572917

2. Cashiers schedules
The three following charts display the average waiting time calculated using the model according
to the number of cashier. They were used to generate optimal schedules.
one cashier
Week\Day

mon

tue

wed

thu

fri

sat

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

0
0
0
0
5.261933657
4.643640351
1.291839797

4.134167
4.714322
4.64364
5.623397
2.143886
2.759492
4.714322

4.020507
3.302355
1.007511
1.355351
1.395071
1.913263
6.734764

19.80655
3.261512
4.574643
9.086725
1.952758
9.309612
14.9028

10.8815
9.309612
19.80655
7.002315
1.913263
2.857199
2.890864

16.6920045
4.64364035
2.79152685
2.43868805
2.23661382
2.14388629
2.66644103

24

wk
average
9.25578791
4.20524037
5.47064484
4.25107934
2.48392103
3.93784885
5.53350489

8
9
10
11
12

14.90279889
5.92244
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 cashier
0
0

4.192893
250.2827
0
0
0

11.85909
8.101102
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

10.5875
22.9637557
0
0
163.854167

Week\Day

mon

tue

wed

thu

fri

sat

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

0.827242442
0.714574189
0.658426617
0.690845899
0.399101006
0.383605072
0.206534175
0.496558723
1.226061187
1.083294124
3.963165808
0.714574189

0.368595
0.385515
0.383605
0.407039
0.276914
0.312989
0.385515
0.413078
0.932644
1.488778
1.445432
1.038805

0.364916
0.338214
0.174959
0.212915
0.216793
0.26068
0.427462
0.370446
0.567718
0.791424
1.219344
0.642833

0.513503
0.336487
0.381703
0.457528
0.263585
0.459745
0.496559
0.480135
0.446585
0.918609
0.981396
0.75006

0.473249
0.459745
0.513503
0.43165
0.26068
0.317922
0.319578
0.589823
1.136374
1.303416
1.651178
1.4286

0.50375544
0.38360507
0.31462746
0.29536158
0.2829757
0.27691433
0.3081112
0.4709742
0.52093044
0.63063929
0.64283282
0.56501437

7.91078735
46.8912659
0
0
27.3090278
wk
average
0.50854369
0.43635674
0.40447061
0.41588978
0.28334154
0.33530927
0.35729327
0.47016902
0.80505221
1.03602676
1.65055804
0.85664766

3 cashiers
Week\Day

mon

tue

wed

thu

fri

sat

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

0.122515
0.105066
0.096022
0.101271
0.05199
0.049307
0.019951
0.068845
0.17663
0.15859
0.360524
0.105066

0.046713
0.049637
0.049307
0.053365
0.031154
0.037195
0.049637
0.054412
0.137964
0.206361
0.201742
0.152673

0.046079
0.04149
0.015316
0.020923
0.021519
0.02849
0.056906
0.047033
0.080969
0.117071
0.175812
0.093471

0.071752
0.041194
0.048978
0.062113
0.028964
0.062497
0.068845
0.066017
0.060219
0.135956
0.144824
0.110664

0.06483
0.062497
0.071752
0.057632
0.02849
0.038031
0.038312
0.084684
0.165463
0.18583
0.222748
0.199919

0.070081
0.049307
0.037472
0.034225
0.032159
0.031154
0.03637
0.064437
0.073023
0.091466
0.093471
0.080513

25

wk
average
0.454963
0.393352
0.355892
0.368245
0.262598
0.309343
0.325317
0.433331
0.678669
0.894591
1.174301
0.738258

3. Schedule testing
The following tables show the daily weighted average waiting time for clients, using the suggested
schedule.
Daily average waiting time

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

mon

tue

wed

thu

fri

sat

0.357424077
0.308235167
0.283490143
0.29779592
0.167693522
0.160739591
0.47786058
0.211416196
0.526440234
0.466824661
1.561404749
0.308235167

0.154007
0.161597
0.16074
0.171257
0.743657
0.924615
0.161597
0.173967
0.402857
0.633833
0.616305
0.448051

0.152358
1.079249
0.383097
0.498524
0.511363
0.673826
0.180425
0.154837
0.243219
0.341856
0.523656
0.276592

0.219002
1.067744
0.159886
0.193918
0.685878
0.194913
0.211416
0.204057
0.189008
0.39684
0.423681
0.323796

0.20097
0.194913
0.219002
0.182304
0.673826
0.952741
0.9624
0.253063
0.4891
0.558358
0.698891
0.609479

0.21463915
0.16073959
0.93385231
0.8311932
0.77138523
0.74365732
0.89769366
0.19994933
0.22232539
0.27119031
0.27659188
0.24201348

26

wk
average
0.21640007
0.49541279
0.35667789
0.36249864
0.59230047
0.60841525
0.48189856
0.19954831
0.34549163
0.44481706
0.68342181
0.36802777

month average
march
0.357747346

April
0.470540649

may
0.460439571